From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Elliston <bje@redhat.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: better handling of unknown operands
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:37:00 -0000
Message-id: <15033.7926.95290.971608@scooby.apac.redhat.com>
References: <15030.45147.804718.597177@scooby.apac.redhat.com> <15032.22278.525106.539421@scooby.apac.redhat.com> <20010321080301.D17011@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00188.html

>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ch Eigler <fche@redhat.com> writes:

  Frank> :   Ben> More generally, shouldn't cgen complain about any operand that appears
  Frank> :   Ben> in the syntax string but not the field format list, or
  Frank> :   Ben> vice-versa?

  Frank> : I haven't heard any comments on this [...]

  Frank> It's not quite like that -- keep in mind ifields that embody padding or
  Frank> reserved bits, and need no mentino in the syntax string.

But you're referring to ifields.  I'm talking about *operands*:

    "beq $rm, @$rn"
    (+ (f-fixed 16) rm rn (f-subop 10) (f-0 0))

Both `rm' and `rn' (and only `rm',`rn') should appear in both places.
Right?

Ben